population mobilitydelwp-internet-m5.clients.squiz.net/__data/assets/word_d… · web...

Internal migration in Victoria

Internal Migration in Victoria - contents

List of Figures...................................................................................................3List of Tables....................................................................................................4Executive Summary.........................................................................................5Introduction.......................................................................................................7Population mobility...........................................................................................9

Components of population mobility in Victoria..............................................9Population mobility by age..........................................................................11ABS Survey of Residential and Workplace Mobility....................................14

Interstate migration.........................................................................................17Interstate migration around Australia..........................................................17The age of interstate movers......................................................................19Interstate migration – Victoria.....................................................................20Total population flows to and from Victoria.................................................21

Historical trends......................................................................................21Net interstate migration between Victoria and the rest of Australia............22Who are the interstate migrants?................................................................24

Historical trend in total population flows by age......................................24Where do interstate migrants move to?..................................................27

Intrastate movement.......................................................................................33Migration flows between Melbourne and regional Victoria..........................33

Migration from Melbourne to regional Victoria.........................................34Migration from regional Victoria to Melbourne.........................................36

Population movement within Melbourne.....................................................39Case studies – Melbourne movement........................................................43

The urban fringe – Melton.......................................................................43Established middle suburbs – Whitehorse..............................................44The inner city – Port Phillip......................................................................46

Population movement within regional Victoria............................................48Case studies – movement in regional Victoria............................................49

Coastal region – Surf Coast....................................................................49Dryland farming region – Hindmarsh.......................................................51Tree change region – Moira....................................................................52Large regional centre – Ballarat..............................................................54

Conclusion......................................................................................................57References.....................................................................................................59

List of Figures

1. Place of usual residence 2001, for persons usually resident in Victoria, 20062. Source of population turnover as a proportion of resident population, persons

aged 5 years and over, by state, 20063. Age distribution of resident population and movers aged 5 years and over,

2006 4. Proportion of people changing address by age, Victoria, 2001-065. Proportion of people changing address by age and state, 2001-066. Persons who changed their place of usual residence in the three years prior

to October 2008, by age7. Persons who moved in the three years prior to October 2008, by tenure8. Interstate migration, Australia – total persons, 1981–82 to 2007–089. Net interstate migration, 2006–07 to 2007–0810. Proportion of all arrivals by state, by age, 2006–0711. Proportion of all departures by state, by age, 2006–0712. Net interstate migration, Victoria, 1986–87 to 2007–0813. Gross interstate movements, Victoria, 1986–87 to 2006–0714. Net interstate migration, Victoria, 1993–9415. Net interstate migration, Victoria, 2000–0116. Net interstate migration, Victoria, 2006–0717. Gross interstate movements by age, Victoria, selected years18. Total interstate arrivals by age, Victoria, selected years19. Total interstate departures by age, Victoria, selected years20. Age structure of net interstate migration, Victoria, selected years21. Persons living interstate in 2001, by SLA of usual residence, 200622. Interstate migrants as a proportion of all in-migrants, by SLA, 2001–0623. Age specific migration from interstate to selected regions, 2001–0624. Persons living interstate in 2006, by SLA or usual residence, 200125. Implied net migration between Melbourne and regional Victoria by age,

1976–81 to 2001–0626. Persons usually resident in Melbourne 2001 (total number), by place of usual

residence, 200627. Persons usually resident in Melbourne 2001 (rate per 1,000 population), by

place of usual residence, 200628. Persons usually resident in regional Victoria in 2001 (total number), who were

living in the MSD in 2006, by SLA29. Persons usually resident in regional Victoria in 2001 (rate per 1,000

population), who were living in the MSD in 2006, by SLA30. Proportion of persons moving, by age, 1991-96 to 2001-0631. Main movements of people within Melbourne, by SLA, 1986–91 to 2001–0632. Population movement within Melbourne LGAs, 2001–0633. Major migration flows, Melton, 2001–0634. Age structure of in and out migrants, Melton, 2001–0635. Major migration flows, Whitehorse, 2001–0636. Age structure of in and out migrants, Whitehorse,2001–0637. Major migration flows, Port Phillip, 2001-0638. Age structure of in and out migrants, Port Phillip, 2001-639. Major migration flows, Surf Coast, 2001-0640. Age structure of in and out migrants, Surf Coast, 2001-0641. Major migration flows, Hindmarsh, 2001-0642. Age structure of in and out migrants, Hindmarsh, 2001-0643. Major migration flows, Moira, 2001-0644. Age structure of in and out migrants, Moira, 2001-06

45. Major migration flows, Ballarat, 2001-0646. Age structure of in and out migrants, Ballarat, 2001-06

List of Tables

1. Components of population mobility, by state, 2006 2. Persons who moved in the three years prior to October 2008, by Labour

Force Region3. Reasons for moving, three years prior to October 2008, Victoria4. Interstate migration flows, 2007–085. Statistical Division of destination, Victorian residents from 20016. Statistical Division of origin, interstate residents from 20017. Net migration between Melbourne and regional Victoria, 1981–86 to 2001–068. Main flows of persons within the MSD, by LGA, 2001-069. Main flows of persons within regional Victoria, by LGA, 2001-06

Executive Summary

Migration with Australia plays a major role in determining population growth across Victoria. Unlike births and deaths, which are relatively stable components of population change, levels of migration are volatile and can vary widely between places and over time. As such, an understanding of internal migration trends, their drivers, and their impacts, assists in an understanding of population change in Victoria.

Population mobility

o Australia has a very high rate of residential mobility – between 2001 and 2006, 7.5 million persons, or 43% of the population aged 5 years and over, changed address. The equivalent figures for Victoria were 1.7 million and 39%.

o Young adults are the most mobile group – persons aged 20-39 comprised 47% of all movers between 2001 and 2006. Much of this movement is likely to be related to educational and employment opportunities.

o As age increases, the level of mobility declines, but then increases slightly in the oldest age groups. These moves are more likely to be related to health considerations.

o Aside from age, household tenure has a strong relationship to mobility, with renters far more likely to move than those with a mortgage.

o According to the ABS Survey of Residential Mobility, reasons for moving are dominated by accessibility considerations, such as living closer to family, friends and place of employment.

Interstate migration

o The volume of interstate migration has been highly volatile since the early 1980s. In 2007–08, about 354,000 persons moved between the states and territories, representing a population turnover rate of 3.3%.

o In 2007–08, New South Wales and Queensland recorded the most interstate moves, but with different outcomes. New South Wales lost 21,900 persons to other parts of Australia, while Queensland gained 23,100 persons. The figure for Victoria was a moderate loss of 2,500 persons.

o In line with overall patterns of mobility, interstate movement is dominated by young adults. In Victoria, they show a strong tendency to settle in inner Melbourne.

o Victoria has historically lost population through interstate migration, except for a brief period in the late 1990s/early 2000s when modest gains were recorded. This coincided with strong economic conditions and a favourable housing and employment market.

o During the recession of the early 1990s, Victoria experienced significant net migration losses, peaking in 1993–2004, when a figure of almost 30,000 was recorded.

o Queensland and New South Wales are the main destination for persons leaving Victoria, and they are also the major sources of interstate migrants.

Intrastate migration

o Short distance moves, particularly within the same geographic area, comprise the bulk of intrastate migration moves. This is related to familiarity of an area.

o Melbourne tends to lose population to regional Victoria, though the level is volatile. However, when the data is examined by age, regional Victoria has historically lost young adults to Melbourne, but has recorded gains in all other age groups. A lot of this movement is between municipalities which border the Melbourne Statistical Division.

o Movement within Melbourne tends to be along sectoral lines and over short distances, with the outer suburbs gaining population from those closer to the city. Cross city flows are not common.

o The largest migration flows in regional Victoria are within the large regional centres. There is little evidence of a wide scale “sponge-city” effect, and some larger regional centres record significant flows outwards into their rural hinterlands.

Introduction

This report provides an overview of recent internal migration trends in Victoria. It examines the main trends in population mobility, interstate migration and intra-state migration, and how these have changed over time. The discussion presented here provides background information for the Victoria in Future (VIF) population projections produced by the Department of Planning and Community Development.

Migration is one of two components of population change – the other being natural increase – and it is highly selective of both geography and age. Unlike births and deaths, levels of mobility are volatile and can vary widely between places and over time. Net migration gains and losses, and their differences between regions, are an important driver behind the redistribution of population in Victoria. For this reason, understanding the trends is an important component of understanding population growth and change.

Australia has one of the highest rates of personal mobility in the western world. Between 2001 and 2006, over 40% of the population aged 5 years and over changed address. Though the rate was slightly lower for Victoria, around 39% of the population changed address in this time period.

Regardless of location, an individual’s age is highly correlated with mobility and differs according to the stage of life cycle. Persons aged 20-39 years comprise almost half of all movers in Victoria. Within this age cohort, it is likely that the reasons for moving are different, with persons in their twenties more likely to move for reasons of education and employment, while persons in their thirties tend to make moves more related to family or employment. Somewhat related to this is the slightly higher mobility of young children, whose mobility decisions are effectively determined by those of their parents. Mobility also increases slightly for the very oldest age groups – again, this is a life cycle determinant generally brought about by declining health or death of a spouse.

In the last ten years, significant changes have occurred in interstate migration flows. Since the 1970s, a dominant feature has been a general movement of people from the southern states towards the north, and more recently, the west. Historically, Victoria has lost people to other parts of Australia, particularly Queensland. It is assumed that this is amenity related, similar to trends operating in North America, ie rust-belt to sun-belt migration. However, in the late 1990s, Victoria recorded a net influx of people from interstate for the first time since the early 1970s. This trend persisted for about five years, and while Victoria is once again recording a net loss of persons to other states, the numbers are relatively small compared to the last decades of the twentieth century.

Migration between Melbourne and regional Victoria has defining characteristics which are also showing signs of change. Since the early 1980s, Melbourne has recorded net migration loss of persons to regional Victoria, though the volume of this has been volatile. However, there are marked differences when age is considered – Melbourne gains young adults (15-24 year olds) from regional Victoria, but for all other age groups it looses population. The movement of young persons from regional Victoria is a historic trend associated with leaving the parental home and gaining independence either through seeking better education and employment opportunities, but it has significant implications in terms of the level of future population growth throughout large parts of the state.

Much of the data in this report is sourced from the Census of Population and Housing, which is conducted in Australia every five years. The most recent Census was conducted in 2006. Questions on the Census form ask respondents to provide their usual address not only on Census night, but where they lived one year and five years prior. The data obtained facilitates analysis of the migration flows (both gross and net) at small geographic levels.

While the Census can inform us a lot about the level of mobility and the direction of flows, it does not provide information about the decisions made that lead to a move. These can only be inferred by the data. Several qualitative studies on migration decisions have been conducted in Australia over the years (for example, ABS, 2008), but it is not the main focus of the research presented here. Another drawback to using Census data is that it doesn’t capture multiple moves and therefore is likely to underestimate the total level of mobility. Likewise, the characteristics of movers are not captured at the time of the move, only at the time of the Census, so that analysis of sub-populations may be misleading. Despite these limitations, the Census nevertheless provides data which shows the movement of people across, out of, and into Victoria, thus providing valuable information in order to assist the assumption making process behind VIF.

This report is structured in the following way. It begins with a discussion on general trends associated with population mobility, particularly the strong relationship with age. Analysis of a recent survey conducted by the ABS on residential mobility is also included. The report then looks at recent trends in interstate migration, including the volume, spatial aspects, and the relationship with age. Finally, intra-state migration is discussed, with reference to migration flows within both Melbourne and regional Victoria, as well as flows between them. Case studies highlighting trends in specific locations are also discussed. The information presented plays a vital role in forming the assumptions regarding migration, which underlie the population projections published by DPCD, and provides some insight into the changing characteristics of these flows.

Population mobility

One of the main sources of population mobility in Australia is the Census of Population and Housing. Specifically, two questions are asked – one pertaining to usual place of residence five years ago, and the other one year ago – to determine the level and spatial pattern of mobility. This section considers data relating to place of usual residence five years ago and on Census night.

Between 2001 and 2006, almost 7.5 million persons in Australia, or 43% of the population changed address. This compares with figures of 1.7 million and 39% for Victoria. This is likely to be an underestimate of the level of mobility, because the Census does not count multiple moves.

Components of population mobility in Victoria

Of those persons aged five years or over, who were usually resident in Victoria in 2006, the majority (61%) were living at the same address as in 2001. Of those who moved, many moves were local, that is within the same Statistical Local Area (SLA) (11% of all residents) or from elsewhere in Victoria (20%).

Figure 1: Place of usual residence 2001, for persons usually resident in Victoria, 2006

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing (2006)

Only 3% of the population aged over five had moved from another state in Australia, compared to a national average of 3.3%, with a further 5% moving from overseas to Victoria.

Table 1 shows that in comparison with other states, Victoria has the second lowest level of population turnover, with only South Australia recording a lower rate (38%). Queensland has the highest level of population turnover, with 51% of the population

aged five or more residing in a different address in 2006 from 2001. The high level of population turnover in Queensland is due to the proportionally high levels of movements intrastate from outside of the same SLA and interstate. Numerically, Queensland had the highest number (260,000) of persons moving to the state from elsewhere in Australia; over half were from New South Wales (NSW), and about 20% from Victoria.

Table 1: Components of population mobility, by state, 2006

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing, Basic Community Profile (Table B38)

For total numbers of movers, NSW was far ahead of the other states and territories with over 2.3 million movers between 2001 and 2006, accounting for 41% of the resident population aged 5 and over in 2006. NSW was followed by Queensland (1.74 million movers) and Victoria (1.70 million movers).

Figure 2: Source of population turnover as a proportion of resident population, persons aged 5 years and over, by state, 2006


In all states with the exception of Tasmania, the largest proportion of the population aged 5 and over who moved, moved outside their SLA but within their state of residency. In contrast, 16% of the resident population aged 5 and over in Tasmania had moved within the SLA they resided in during 2001, compared to 15% who had moved elsewhere in the state. Similar patterns of mobility are experienced across the states, with the vast proportion of those who have moved between 2001 and 2006, moving within the state that they resided in during 2001. However, in both the Northern Territory (NT) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT), there are noticeably high levels of movements from interstate with 15% of the resident population having moved from interstate in the ACT and 19% in the NT. In the case of the ACT, this is likely due to close links with neighbouring communities in NSW such as Queanbeyan. In the NT, mobility has traditionally been higher due to the younger age structure.

Population mobility by age

Figure 3 below shows a comparison between the age structures of the resident population compared with those who moved between 2001 and 2006. Females were slightly more likely to move than males, comprising 51.5% of all movers in Victoria during this time period.

Figure 3: Age distribution of resident population and movers aged 5 years and over, 2006

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing, 2006 (unpublished data)

In terms of absolute numbers, Figure 3 shows that the most mobile group in society are aged between 20 and 39, accounting for almost 800,000 (47%) of all movers between 2001 and 2006.

Despite having slightly lower numbers in terms of overall population, the numbers of movers aged 5-9 is higher than those in the age brackets 10-14 and 15-19. This pattern of a decrease in mobility as persons enter their teens is replicated in Figure 4, which shows the proportion of movers within each age bracket.

Figure 4: Proportion of people changing address by age, Victoria, 2001-06

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing (unpublished data)

The proportion of the population aged between 5 and 9 who moved at least once between 2001 and 2006 was 45%, compared to an overall figure of 39%. This dropped to 36% for the following two age brackets before rising sharply after the age of 20 to reach 72% for the age bracket 25-29.

The divergence between the 5-9 age bracket and the following two age brackets may be attributed to the family life cycle, suggesting that parents are more likely to move with their children when they are younger and are still forming a family household. Moves of children are dictated by the mobility decisions of their parents. This explanation is helped by the evidence of falling numbers and proportions of mobility after the 30-34 age bracket, with the proportion falling back to the average at the 40-45 age bracket.

The initial rise in mobility after the 15-19 age bracket may be explained by the propensity of younger persons to move for educational and economic purposes. Mobility for education, particularly tertiary education, is usually associated with persons in their late teens and twenties. In addition, younger persons are likely to move for employment opportunities when starting, or looking to advance, their careers. In comparison to older age ranges, younger persons are less likely to have partners/spouses and children, allowing greater flexibility in their movement

decisions, particularly if they are renting. However, it may also be a time during which younger persons are likely to move away from the family home, or move in order to cohabit with their spouse or partner.

Whilst the numbers of persons moving reduces by successive age brackets after the 30-34 age bracket, the proportion of the population moving starts increasing again from 16% in the 75-79 age bracket to 33% for the over 90 age bracket. Moves in the older age groups are more likely to be health related, such as a move into a nursing home. Persons may also move into a smaller dwelling due to the death of a spouse or partner.

Figure 5 compares turnover by age between Victoria and the other states and territories and shows a similar pattern across the age spectrum.

Figure 5: Proportion of people changing address by age and state, 2001-06


With the exception of the over 85 age bracket, Queensland has the highest proportion of movers across all the age brackets. In comparison, Victoria has some of the lowest proportions of movement across all age brackets, with the lowest proportions between the ages of 5 and 24. Between the age brackets of 45-54 and 85 years and over, Victoria has either the lowest or the second lowest proportion, with only the ACT having a lower proportion between 55 and 74 years.

ABS Survey of Residential and Workplace Mobility

The most recent data on migration released by the ABS is by way of a survey conducted in October 2008. This survey provides a useful complement to the Census data because in addition to patterns of migration, reasons for moving were also sought. This section presents some of the highlights from that survey.

In the three years prior to October 2008, over 1.1 million persons aged 18 years and over in Victoria changed their usual address. This represented 29% of the population. Consistent with Census data, the likelihood of moving declined with age – about half of persons aged 18-34 years moved, compared with about 12% of persons aged 55 years and over (see Figure 6 below).

Figure 6: Persons who changed their place of residence in the three years prior to October 2008, by age

Source: ABS, Survey of Residential and Workplace Mobility, 2008 (Cat. no. 3240.0)

This pattern was consistent in both Melbourne and regional Victoria, though there were slight differences in the propensity to move – 28.7% versus 30.1% respectively. In particular, the mobility of persons aged 18-34 years and 55 years and over was much higher in regional Victoria compared to Melbourne.

In terms of household tenure, renters were far more likely to move than those with a mortgage (Figure 7). Again, this pattern was consistent regardless of residential location. Across Victoria, 61.7% of renters changed their address, compared to 18.4% of persons with a mortgage. Owners who did not have a mortgage showed an even lower propensity to move (10%). This is not surprising given that renters generally have far more flexibility to move, and are likely to have less ties to their place of residence.

Figure 7: Persons who moved in the three years prior to October 2008, by tenure


As with Census data, the tendency to move differed across regions (Table 2). The Inner Melbourne Labour Force Region, covering the central city area and surrounding suburbs, had the highest proportion of movers in the three years to October 2008 (55.8%). This region has a youthful age profile, and as discussed above, younger persons have a greater tendency to move. Many overseas students and migrants tend to settle in inner Melbourne, and this also contributes to the higher level of mobility. The only other region to record higher than average mobility was Outer Western Melbourne (34.0%). This area contains the Local Government Areas (LGA)of Melton and Wyndham, which are growing rapidly as the urban area of Melbourne expands.

Table 2: Persons who moved in the three years prior to October 2008, by Labour Force Region


The survey also sought reasons as to why people changed residence, and the results are summarised in Table 3 below. The decision making process behind mobility can be complex because it is often not attributed to one reason alone, therefore multiple responses were permitted in the survey.

Table 3: Reasons for moving, three years prior to October 2008, Victoria


At the most broad level, accessibility reasons dominated responses (63.4%), followed by other reasons (32.7%) and housing reasons (27.7%). When the responses are examined in detail, the main reasons were to live near family and friends (22.8%), work – better access or prospects (19.7%) and attractive neighbourhood (19.1%).

While these responses shed light on the decision making process, it is interesting that most of them can be classified as “pull” factors, that is what features of a location compel people to move there.

Interstate migration

One of the key components of population change is the gains or losses of people through movement to other parts of Australia. There are many reasons why people choose to move interstate, but like other forms of migration, net interstate migration figures tend to be dominated by younger adults.

Interstate migration around Australia

Since the early 1980s, the level of interstate migration, as measured by the total number of movers, has been highly volatile. Approximately 244,900 persons moved interstate in 1983–84, compared to 398,600 in 2002–03, the highest level recorded in the last quarter of a century. The year to year movements are shown in the figure below.

Figure 8: Interstate migration, Australia – total persons, 1981–82 to 2007–08

Source: ABS, Australian Demographic Statistics (Cat. No. 3101.0)

In 2007–08 an estimated 353,720 persons moved between the states and territories of Australia, slightly higher than the 2006–07 figure of 351,900. This represents a population turnover rate of 3.3%.

The number of movements varies widely from state to state, as shown in Table 4 below. For total numbers of movers in 2007–08, New South Wales and Queensland were well ahead of the other states and territories with gross interstate moves (arrivals and departures) totalling 190,100 and 175,600 respectively. However, the net migration outcomes were very different, with Queensland gaining 23,100 persons and NSW losing 21,900 persons. More modest net gains were seen for Western Australia, while smaller losses of population were recorded in South Australia and Victoria.

Table 4: Interstate migration flows, 2007–08


Victoria had the third highest gross interstate moves totalling 128,800 in 2006–07 and 130,300 in 2007–08 however the net result was a much smaller figure of a loss of just 2,200 and 2,500 people respectively. Total moves in the other states were not as high, but the net migration outcomes were different, with South Australia losing population in both 2006–07 and 2007–08 and Western Australia gaining.

Figure 9: Net interstate migration, 2006–07 to 2007–08


The age of interstate movers

In general the age of interstate movers follow similar patterns across the states and territories. The latest available data by age is for the year 2006–07, and it confirms that the largest proportions of people moving are in the 20-24 year age category, with large numbers also aged 25 to 29 years. In fact, over one-third of interstate movers was aged 20-34 years. There are also high numbers of movers in the 30-39 year age group and presumably their children aged 0-9 years.

Figure 10: Proportion of all arrivals by state, by age, 2006–07

Source: ABS, Migration Australia (Cat. no. 3412.0)

In terms of arrivals by state, the territories tend to have the highest proportions of young adult arrivals. These are likely to be young university students, graduates and army recruits, especially in the NT. Tasmania has the lowest proportion of interstate arrivals in the young adult group but has higher proportions of arrivals in the middle aged groups (45 to 64 years), than the other states and territories.

All the large states exhibit similar patterns of interstate arrivals, gaining large numbers of young adults and families, with numbers of arrivals of older adults falling away, but rising slightly in the oldest age cohorts.

Interstate departures show a very similar age profile as arrivals, perhaps even more consistent across the states and territories.

Figure 11: Proportion of all departures by state, by age, 2006–07

Source: ABS, Migration Australia (Cat. no. 3412.0)

Interstate migration – Victoria

The historical pattern of interstate migration in Australia has tended to be for the largest two States (NSW and Victoria) to lose population, particularly to Queensland and to a lesser extent WA. In the 20 years since 1987–88 NSW has lost a net figure of around 410,000 people to other states, and Victoria has lost around 153,000, while Queensland has gained over 620,000 from other parts of Australia. The smaller states and particularly the territories, tend to see fluctuating positive and negative interstate migration patterns year to year.

Despite the large overall loss of interstate migrants from Victoria, the annual pattern of change has been volatile, as shown in Figure 12. Since the early 1970s, Victoria has typically recorded net interstate migration losses. Even in the late 1980s, with the economy booming, losses of between 10,000 and 15,000 people interstate were recorded annually.

When the 1990s recession was at its deepest, these figures bottomed out at a net interstate migration loss from Victoria of 29,200 people in the 1993–94 financial year. However, the steady recovery of Victoria’s economic fortunes over the late 1990s and early 2000s saw an unprecedented reversal in interstate migration in Victoria. In 1998–99, for the first time in recorded data, Victoria saw positive interstate migration (a modest gain of 2,500 people).

This positive interstate migration quickly peaked at just over 5,000 people in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 before falling again, and by 2002–03 Victoria had returned to net interstate migration loss. However the pattern since then has been only modest interstate migration losses for Victoria, with a figure of 2,470 recorded in 2007–08.

Figure 12: Net interstate migration, Victoria, 1986–87 to 2007–08

Source: ABS, Migration Australia (Cat. no. 3412.0)Australian Demographic Statistics (Cat. no. 3101.0)

Total population flows to and from Victoria

Historical trends The pattern of total movement over the past two decades has been one of small year to year fluctuations, but with different outcomes in terms of net migration. Interstate migration has fluctuated between 118,000 and 148,000 over this time. The years of highest interstate migration were in the early 2000s (148,400 movers in 2002–03), when Victoria’s economy was growing strongly and house prices were escalating rapidly. On the other hand, 1993–94 was another year of high total movement, when Victoria was deep in recession. The lowest levels of interstate migration were recorded in 1986–87 (118,700 movers) and 1990–91 (118,600 movers).

Figure 13: Gross interstate movements, arrivals and departures, Victoria, 1986–87 to 2006–07.


Net interstate migration between Victoria and the rest of Australia

While the gross numbers of interstate movers is important, it is the net flows that affect total population numbers. The early 1990s recession had a major impact on the Victorian economy. Major restructuring of public and private sectors, particularly in the public service, manufacturing and energy generation industries, was occurring alongside depressed investment in high employment sectors such as building and construction. In net terms Victoria lost nearly 30,000 people to the rest of Australia in 1993–94, with no net gains recorded from any states or territories. Net loss to NSW and Queensland was particularly high (6,010 and 18,060 respectively).

Figure 14: Net interstate migration, Victoria, 1993–94

Net Interstate Migration1993-94

More than 5,000 2,000 to 5,000 1,000 to 2,000 0 to 1,000

Gain to VictoriaLoss from Victoria

Source: ABS, DPCD

By 2000–01 Australia had returned to strong overall population growth and the economic recovery of Victoria resulted in a strong turnaround in its attractiveness to interstate movers. In Victoria there was now high economic growth as well as booming investment and employment growth in the building and construction sector. Net interstate migration was now positive, running at just over 5,000 people. Victoria was a net gainer from all states except Queensland, where there was a much smaller net loss compared to those recorded eight years before.



More than 5,000 2,000 to 5,000 1,000 to 2,000 0 to 1,000


Source: ABS, DPCD

The most recent figures show a mixed pattern of interstate migration for Victoria. Victoria continues to attract small net gains from the ACT and Tasmania, and more significant numbers from South Australia. NSW continues to provide Victoria’s largest net gain, with 2,700 more people moving south (23,500) to Victoria compared to those that moved in the other direction (20,800).

Queensland continues to be the largest net gainer of people moving from Victoria. The 4,200 net loss from Victoria was comprised of around 16,900 people leaving Queensland for Victoria and 21,100 people heading the other way. Victoria also recorded significant net losses of people to Western Australia and the NT.



More than 5,000 2,000 to 5,000 500 to 2,000 0 to 500


Source: ABS, DPCD

Although Victoria is once again recording net losses of persons to other states, the numbers are historically small and reflect the continuing strength of the Victorian economy and demand for labour, as well as the attraction of Melbourne and lower house prices compared to Sydney in particular.

Who are the interstate migrants?

Historical trend in total population flows by ageThe proportions of total movers to and from Victoria in different age categories have also shown some changes. In 2006–07, there was a shift to an older age profile of the total (gross) migrants. There were generally smaller proportions of 0 to 29 year olds moving, but increased proportions of 30 to 64 year olds. The 65 years and older age groups were slightly lower in 2006–07.

Figure 17: Gross interstate movements (arrivals and departures), by age, Victoria, selected years.

Source: ABS various migration special purchases

As the following charts show, this shift to an older age profile of total Victorian migrants is a factor of the same shift both in the arrivals to Victoria, and the departures from Victoria.

Figure 18: Total interstate arrivals, by age, Victoria, selected years


Figure 19: Gross interstate departures, by age, Victoria, selected years


In the past there was a misconception that the majority of interstate movers were retirees, generally leaving the colder southern states and heading north. However, this is not the case. In fact, the numbers of interstate movers aged in their 20s is three and a half times the number of those aged in their 50s. There are many reasons why Australians move interstate, it is as much about people seeking education, employment, career and even housing opportunities as it is about looking for a different lifestyle or warmer climate.

As with the turn around in Victoria net migration from the huge losses in the early 1990s to the gains in the early 2000s and only slight annual losses today, the net flows by age have also turned around.

In the early 1990s, Victoria lost population in just about all age categories. While there were plenty of 55+ early retirees leaving, the biggest losses were still in the young adult age groups. With the economy in Victoria doing poorly, many school and tertiary education leavers were heading to other parts of Australia in search of work.

By the early 2000s Victoria was gaining population in all age categories under 45 years, but losing (in net terms) those aged 45 and over. The most recent data, which has Victoria losing a net total of 2,179 people interstate in 2006–07 shows a different pattern to previous years. Victoria now loses people in all age categories below 60 years except one – 15 to 19 year olds. In contrast to the past, Victoria is now a net gainer of people in all age categories above 60 years.

Figure 20: Age structure of net interstate migration, Victoria, selected years


While the positive migration to Victoria in the younger age grouping is almost certainly related to persons moving for educational purposes, the driver for persons aged 60 years and over who move in larger numbers than those who leave, is unknown. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some may be former Victorians returning after migrating elsewhere in Australia. The extent to which this may be true is unable to be measured by currently available data.

Where do interstate migrants move to?

At smaller levels of geography, the main source of migration data is the five yearly Census of Population and Housing. Data sourced from the 2006 Census indicates that almost 136,000 persons usually resident in Victoria in 2006 had lived in another state in 2001. The flow in the opposite direction was slightly higher, at 144,000, meaning that Victoria recorded a net interstate migration loss of some 8,000 persons over the period 2001–06.

Table 5 confirms that important destinations for former Victorian residents were NSW and Queensland. Just over a quarter of interstate migrants moved to the Statistical Divisions (SD) of Brisbane and Sydney between 2001 and 2006. Regional Queensland was also significant, with the Statistical Divisions of Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Far North and Wide Bay Burnett featuring as important destinations. This contrasts with NSW, where outside Sydney, only Murray SD recorded a significant flow. This is not unexpected given that this SD runs almost the entire length of the Victoria-NSW border and there are many towns that, although lie in separate states, exhibit strong linkages with each other, for example Albury-Wodonga, Echuca-Moama and Mildura-Wentworth.

Table 5: Statistical Division of destination, Victorian residents from 2001


In terms of the origin of interstate migrants to Victoria over the period 2001–06, the table below confirms that Sydney was the most common former residence. Almost one in five persons previously resident interstate came from that city. In contrast to destinations, all state capitals figured in the top ten origins. Two southern NSW SDs also contributed significant inflows – Murray and Murrumbidgee.

Table 6: Statistical Division of origin, interstate residents from 2001


The large flow between Melbourne and Sydney is not unexpected given the size of these cities, as well as the strong economic, historical and social linkages between them.

At smaller levels of geography, distinct spatial patterns emerge, as shown in the map below. Almost two-thirds of former interstate residents (88,650) were living in the MSD in 2006.

Figure 21: Persons living interstate in 2001, by SLA of usual residence, 2006


While clearly Melbourne was an important destination for former interstate residents, so too were some of the main regional centres, as well as the SLAs of Mitchell-North (containing the Puckapunyal Army Base), and East Gippsland – Bairnsdale (containing retirement locations such as Lakes Entrance and Paynesville). The highest flows were recorded in the border SLAs of Wodonga (3,895 persons) and Mildura Part A (3,454). In Wodonga, the majority of former interstate residents came from NSW, highlighting the importance of the links with the neighbouring city of Albury. In Mildura, NSW was the previous residence of about half of interstate in-migrants, while South Australia accounted for another 28%.

In Melbourne, large flows of persons were recorded in the inner city SLAs of Melbourne – Remainder (3,401), Port Phillip – St Kilda (3,295) and Stonnington – Prahran (3,058). Many of these persons are likely to be young adults, who tend to be attracted by the lifestyle attributes and housing opportunities available in inner city areas.

When interstate migrants are considered as a proportion of all in-migrants, the spatial pattern is quite different, as depicted in Figure 22. The border SLAs are more important, and is a clear indication of the localised nature of much migration. Clearly, interstate migration, though it may only involve a move over a short distance, is important in influencing population change in these regions.

Figure 22: Interstate migrants as a proportion of all in migrants, by SLA, 2001–06


The SLAs of Wodonga and Mildura Part A recorded the highest proportions of interstate migrants, accounting for 51% and 50% of total inflows respectively. Even SLAs which have recorded population declines in recent years received large proportions of their migrants from interstate, due to what are likely to be local moves made from neighbouring areas in NSW or South Australia. The best examples of these SLAs are West Wimmera (45% from interstate) and Glenelg – North (41%), both located along the South Australian border; Indigo Part B (45%) and Towong Part A and B on the NSW border (42% and 45% respectively).

In Melbourne, the contribution of interstate migrants to total in-migration was considerably less. The highest proportion was recorded in Mornington Peninsula – East (19%), which is likely to relate to the location of the HMAS Cerberus at Point Crib. In many inner city SLAs, about one in six in migrants were previously resident interstate.

The age structure of interstate migrants follows a similar pattern to the macro trends, as shown in the graph below.

Figure 23: Age specific migration from interstate to selected regions, 2001–06


The migration of young adults is clearly dominant in numerical terms, particularly in Inner Melbourne1. Persons in the age group 20-34 years comprised almost two-thirds of the interstate inflow into this region. Australia wide, inner city regions are typically favoured by young professionals for lifestyle and housing reasons, and much of this movement is likely to occur due to education and employment considerations. Compared to other areas, migration of children and elderly persons was quite small.

The age structure of interstate migrants to large regional centres2 and growth areas3 is more typical of families, as indicated by the higher numbers of persons in the age cohorts 25-39 years, and of children (whose migration decisions are governed by their parents).

In contrast to NSW and Queensland, migration to Victorian coastal peri-urban regions4 was not a favoured location for persons from interstate, numbering some 1,200 persons in the period 2001–06. The age structure of these persons was skewed towards young families.

1 Inner Melbourne comprises the LGAs of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra, and the SLA of Stonnington-Prahran.2 Regional centres comprise the LGAs of Greater Geelong, Greater Bendigo and Ballarat3 The growth areas are those designated as growth area councils, namely Wyndham, Melton, Hume, Whittlesea, Casey and Cardinia4 Coastal peri-urban regions comprise the LGAs of Bass Coast, Surf Coast and Queenscliffe.

The origin of former Victorian residents living interstate in 2006 was remarkably similar to the flow coming in, as shown in Figure 23. About 144,000 persons living interstate in 2006 indicated that they had lived in Victoria in 2001, with 62% originating from the MSD.

Figure 24: Persons living interstate in 2006, by SLA of usual residence, 2001


The largest outflows originated in the SLAs of Wodonga (3,804) and Mildura Part A (3,284). As indicated above, these two regions also had the highest inflows from interstate, a reflection of their location adjacent to the NSW border and their role as regional centres. In the case of Wodonga, the volume of outflow was similar to the inflow, but in Mildura, the inflow was slightly larger.

Within Melbourne, the inner city was an important origin, with over 2,000 persons leaving the SLAs of Melbourne – Remainder, Port Phillip – St Kilda and Stonnington – Prahran. It should be noted that the inflow to these SLAs was much higher than the outflow, and indicates that part of the strong population growth in Melbourne’s inner city region was due to high net interstate migration.

In contrast to the interstate inflow, some suburban SLAs recorded strong outflows, namely Manningham – West (2,097) and Frankston – West (2,263), numbers which were comparable to the outflow from the inner city SLAs. However, the destinations were different. Former inner city residents favoured NSW as a destination, while the former suburban residents favoured Queensland. Almost half of former residents from Frankston – West in 2001 were living in Queensland in 2006.

Intrastate movement

This section looks at migration trends within Victoria, with particular emphasis on the period 2001–06. At this level of geography, the only reliable source of data is the Census of Population and Housing.

Intrastate movements comprise the bulk of all moves and many of these are over short distances. Of the 1.7 million movers in Victoria over the period 2001–06, 28% stayed within the same SLA, and a further 51% moved elsewhere in the State. This relates to familiarity with an area – research has consistently shown that people are more likely to move to an area with which they have some knowledge. Moving short distances also minimises disruptions to education, employment, and social networks, and may also reflect a desire to improve one’s position in the housing market.

Migration flows between Melbourne and regional Victoria

Despite Melbourne’s dominance in Victoria’s urban geography, it tends to lose population to regional Victoria. As the chart below shows, this trend has been occurring since at least the early 1980s but the volume has been volatile. Between 1981 and 1986, the net loss of persons from Melbourne to regional Victoria was approximately 21,510 persons, a volume that has not been recorded since. This was an era when rural living, and the subsequent migration out of all Australian cities, was at its peak. During the 1990s, net migration loss from Melbourne to regional Victoria in each intercensal period was less than 2,000 persons, but between 2001 and 2006, the net loss increased sharply. This was due to a large decline in the number of persons moving from regional Victoria to Melbourne, while the flow in the opposite direction remained relatively steady.

Table 7: Net migration between Melbourne and regional Victoria, 1981–86 to 2001–06

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing, various years

When migration flows are examined by age, once again the higher mobility of young adults is evident, as shown in Figure 25 below. One of the more striking features of migration patterns in Victoria is the loss of young adults from regional Victoria to Melbourne and the consistency of this trend over many decades. As mentioned previously, this is thought to be related to movement based on the need to access a wider range of employment and education opportunities. Regional Victoria gains people in most of the other age categories. There is a peak for persons aged 25-39

and for children, indicating the movement of younger families, and a smaller peak for persons aged 50-64, which is more likely to relate to retirement migration, or possibly for health related reasons. Figure 25: Implied net migration between Melbourne and regional Victoria by age, 1976-81 to 2001–06

Source: DPCD, derived from ABS

Migration from Melbourne to regional Victoria

Between 2001 and 2006, over 71,000 persons moved from Melbourne to regional Victoria. The spatial pattern of settlement of these people is depicted in Figure 26. There is a strong movement of people to places just across the MSD boundary, as well as the regional centres, Latrobe Valley and the Calder corridor. In terms of specific SLAs, the largest numbers of people moved to Mitchell – South (3,900). Towns in the southern part of this region, such as Wallan and Kilmore, have good transport links into Melbourne, more affordable housing, and as a result are growing quickly. There were also large flows of people into Baw Baw Part B – West (2,900), Greater Geelong Part B (2,700) and Macedon Ranges – Balance (2,500). Of the SLAs with the largest flows, East Gippsland – Bairnsdale stands out, with 1,800 former Melbournians moving there between 2001 and 2006. There are several towns in this region that are popular holiday locations and have therefore become “sea change” type destinations, such as Paynesville, Lakes Entrance and Metung.

Figure 26: Persons usually resident in Melbourne 2001 (total number), by place of usual residence 2006


However, because this figure depicts total outflows from Melbourne, the largest flows can be influenced by the population size and settlement pattern of the destination area. For example, over 5,100 people moved to Geelong, the largest regional centre, between 2001 and 2006, but this represented a rate of just 31.8 persons per 1,000 population. In contrast, the SLA of Mitchell – South, with a smaller population scattered across a number of towns, recorded a rate of 191.7 persons per 1,000 population, indicating that in-migration from Melbourne had a much larger influence on population growth in the period 2001–06.

Therefore, when spatial patterns are depicted by rates, the importance of regional centres diminishes, yet the SLAs immediately adjacent to the MSD remain important. Clearly, in-migration from Melbourne to these SLAs is an important factor in population growth and change in these areas.

Figure 27: Persons usually resident in Melbourne 2001 (rate per 1,000 population) by place of usual residence 2006


Migration from regional Victoria to Melbourne

Between 2001 and 2006, approximately 54,900 persons moved from regional Victoria to Melbourne.

At the SLA level, the pattern of inflows to the MSD was different to the outflow, as shown in Figure 28. While there were large inflows from most SLAs adjacent to the MSD, migration from regional centres was more prominent. The highest inflows to the MSD were from Greater Shepparton Part A (2,000 persons), Baw Baw Part B – West (1,800) and Macedon Ranges – Balance and Corio – Inner (both 1,700). Larger flows were also recorded from SLAs in Ballarat, Mildura and the Latrobe Valley. In contrast, migration into the MSD from western Victoria is small scale in nature, except for the regional centres of Warrnambool and Mildura.

A slightly different spatial pattern emerges when migration from regional Victoria to Melbourne is considered by rate rather than total flows, as shown in Figure 29. SLAs adjacent to the MSD boundary, particularly along the northern edge, recorded high rates of 100 or more persons per 1,000 population. In contrast, rates in the regional centres were not amongst the highest recorded, indicating that despite the high numbers moving out, these flows did not have a major impact on the overall population.

Figure 28: Persons resident in regional Victoria in 2001 (total number) who were living in the MSD in 2006, by SLA


Figure 29: Persons resident in regional Victoria in 2001 (rate per 1,000 population) who were living in the MSD in 2006, by SLA


It has previously been shown that migration is highly selective of particular age groups. Overall, young adults are the most mobile group. This is most clearly seen in the large flows of young adults from regional Victoria to Melbourne. This long standing trend is related to education and employment reasons. The graph below shows this trend clearly – there is a peak of persons in the age groups 15-29 years moving into Melbourne.

Figure 30: Proportion of persons moving, by age group, 1991-96 to 2001-06

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing (1996, 2001 and 2006)

Since the early 1990s, about one in four persons moving from regional Victoria to Melbourne was aged 20-24 years. At the 2006 Census, this proportion increased slightly, despite a decline in the actual flow.

Population movement within Melbourne

One of the main features of internal migration within Melbourne in recent decades has been the continual outward movement of the population in line with outward expansion of the metropolitan area. The movement of people within Melbourne is shown in Figure 31 below.

Figure 31: Main movements of people within Melbourne, by SLA – 1986–1991 to 2001–06

Source: ABS, Census of Population and Housing (various years)

This movement has tended to be local in nature – much movement is within one LGA or to a neighbouring one. This is characteristic of migration patterns in other Western countries and relates to familiarity with an area – people are more likely to move to areas with which they have some knowledge. Movement from one side of the metropolitan area to the other is minor in comparison. Instead, migration tends to be concentrated along sectoral lines, for example from established inner and middle suburbs, to fringe areas. This is typical of maturing suburbs, where as families grow older and the children move away from the parental home, they tend to establish themselves in developing suburbs in the same region of the city. This pattern has remained consistent over the last two decades, although the size and spatial distribution of the major flows have changed. The largest net flows between 2001 and 2006 demonstrate this sectoral pattern – in all cases, movement is in an outward direction and within the same region of the metropolitan area. As shown in Table 8, the largest single flow of persons within the metropolitan region between 2001 and 2006 was from Brimbank to Melton, comprising over 10,100 persons. The flow from Greater Dandenong to Casey, on the other side of the metropolitan area, was the second largest flow, comprising 9,460 persons. Of the largest flows depicted in Table 8, only one was inward – that from Mornington Peninsula to Frankston (3,770 persons).

When this data is considered with that on interstate migration, a distinct picture begins to emerge. It appears that new residents to Melbourne tend to locate in the inner suburbs, while existing residents are more likely to move outward to neighbouring regions.

Table 8: Main flows of persons within the MSD, by LGA, 2001–06


The tendency for persons to move short distances, whether this be within the same LGA or to a neighbouring one, is also shown in Figure 32 below. This shows the proportion of persons who moved within Victoria and whether they stayed within the same LGA or moved elsewhere. Generally, in fringe areas, there was a greater tendency to stay within the same LGA. In the case of Wyndham, two-thirds of those who moved stayed within the municipality. Several other LGAs had over half of movers staying within the same municipality and they were all on the fringe – Mornington Peninsula, Casey, Hume, Melton, Frankston, Whittlesea, Yarra Ranges and Cardinia. This may be related to life cycle and a desire to accommodate growing family size – families with young children tend to make localised moves in order to minimise the disruption to their schooling. In the case of Mornington Peninsula, with an ageing population, the high proportion of local moves is more likely to be attributed to a move into a retirement village or nursing home.

In contrast, movers in the inner city showed a greater tendency to move to another LGA, therefore they had a higher incidence of population turnover. Only about 22% of movers resident in the City of Melbourne in 2001 were still living there in 2006. Yarra and Maribyrnong also had low proportions remaining in the municipality, with less than one-third of movers in 2001 still there in 2006. Once again, this highlights the increased tendency for younger persons to move – these municipalities have a higher proportion of young persons in their populations. In contrast, a number of middle ring municipalities showed a greater tendency for their residents to stay within the boundaries – Whitehorse and Monash are the best examples of this trend. This is most likely a function of the age structure of these suburbs, which is skewed towards middle aged persons, who have lower propensities to move.

Figure 32: Population movement within Melbourne LGAs, 2001–06


LGAs where residents showed a greater tendency to move outside the MSD were, unsurprisingly, located on the fringe. Cardinia and Melton were the LGAs with the highest tendency of movers to relocate to regional Victoria. Again, this highlights the significance of local moves, with a high proportion moving to the adjacent LGA in regional Victoria – Baw Baw and Moorabool respectively.

Case studies – Melbourne movement

The urban fringe – Melton

The Shire of Melton is located on the western fringe of suburban Melbourne and as well as the township of the same name, the municipality encompasses a number of recently developed suburbs such as Caroline Springs, Burnside and Hillside. The eastern part of the shire has mainly been developed since 2000, and population growth rates are rapid. Net migration is a significant contributor to population growth – between 2001 and 2006, over 20,840 persons moved into the municipality, and 7,030 persons moved out, resulting in a net gain of 13,810. Figure 33 (below) shows the main net migration flows into this LGA in the period 2001–6.

Figure 33: Major migration flows, Melton, 2001–06


Clearly, migration flows are dominated by the inflow from the neighbouring municipality of Brimbank, located to the east. As shown in Table 8 above, over 10,100 persons resident in Brimbank in 2001 were living in Melton in 2006, and this was the single largest migration flow in the MSD in this period. This comprised almost half of the total inflow into Melton from the rest of Victoria over this time period. The size of the migratory flow in the opposite direction was small in comparison, resulting in a net migration flow of some 8,700 persons to Melton.

The data shows that the main sources of migrants to Melton from within Melbourne originated in the western and northern suburbs. This trend confirms the sectoral

outward movement of Melbourne’s population, as well as the tendency for people to migrate short distances. The largest net flows were all positive, which is a reflection of the magnitude of the net gain, as well as representing a typical pattern of population change in newly developing outer suburbs.

Figure 34: Age structure of in and out migrants, Melton, 2001-06


The age structure of migrants in and out of Melton to other parts of Victoria is similar, and also shows a similarity to the overall age structure of migrants, as it is skewed towards younger age groups. Almost 40% of the in and out flows are of persons in the age group 25-39 years, and there is a smaller but corresponding peak for younger children. This indicates that young families are a significant factor behind population movements in and out of the municipality.

Established middle suburbs – Whitehorse

Encompassing suburbs such as Blackburn, Forest Hill and Burwood East, the LGA of Whitehorse incorporates an area of Melbourne that was largely developed in the decades after World War 2. The population is ageing and growth rates are moderate. While some redevelopment is occurring, the housing stock is primarily low density, consisting of separate dwellings on larger blocks.

Between 2001 and 2006, over 20,370 persons moved into Whitehorse, and approximately 24,830 persons moved out, resulting in a net migration loss of some 4,460 persons. As shown in Figure 35, the major flows of persons in and out of the area were to neighbouring LGAs – 54% of in-migrants were from LGAs that share a border with Whitehorse. The corresponding figure for the out migrants was 50%. Again, this highlights the importance of local moves in intracity migration.

Figure 35: Major migration flows, Whitehorse, 2001–06


Figure 36: Age structure of in and out migrants, Whitehorse, 2001-06


The age profile of migrants to and from Whitehorse over the period 2001 to 2006 shows a similar trend to the overall pattern, with over 40% of movers aged 25-39 years. Compared to Melton, elderly persons comprised a small, but greater

proportion of movers – around 4% were aged 75 years and over. This reflects the nature of the area – its older population profile is a legacy of the rapid development during the 1950s and 1960s – people who may now be seeking alternative forms of housing as they grow older. There is an abundance of aged accommodation in the area, both in the form of retirement villages and nursing homes, which can encourage migration of older persons into the area.

The inner city – Port Phillip

Port Phillip is a vibrant inner city municipality that has undergone a process of gentrification in the last 20-30 years, particularly in the bayside suburbs of St Kilda and Elwood. It has a relatively youthful population and much of the housing stock consists of flats and apartments – it has one of the highest residential densities in Melbourne. Between 2001 and 2006, Port Phillip lost population through migration to other parts of Victoria, totalling some 1,380 persons. However, as discussed in the previous section on interstate migration, the SLA of Port Phillip – St Kilda gained persons from other states of Australia – between 2001 and 2006 the net interstate migration gain was around 1,200 persons, one of the largest net gains in the state.

Figure 37: Major migration flows, Port Phillip, 2001–06


In common with the other case study areas, the major movements in and out of Port Phillip were to and from neighbouring municipalities, particularly Stonnington and Glen Eira. However, there were differences with respect to the net flows. Overall, Port Phillip lost population to Glen Eira over the period 2001–06, totalling some 1,110 persons. In contrast, there was a small net gain from Stonnington (290 persons). These LGAs have similar attributes, as they are both inner city locations which attract young people, and hence it is to be expected that migration between the two would be quite high.

While most migration to and from Port Phillip was with surrounding areas, there were smaller cross town flows to the LGAs of Maribyrnong and Hobsons Bay (640 persons each). There is evidence to suggest that parts of these municipalities have been undergoing a gentrification process – Williamstown has long been one of the upmarket suburbs in the western suburbs of Melbourne. More recently, Maribyrnong has been gentrifying and is taking on similar characteristics to Port Phillip. This has resulted in the municipality becoming a favoured inner city location, and possibly offers Port Phillip residents an alternative and more affordable housing option.

Figure 38: Age structure of in and out migrants, Port Phillip, 2001-06


Whereas the age structure of in and out migrants from the other case study areas was similar, a salient feature of Port Phillip migrants is the dominance of the migration stream for persons aged 20-39 years. Just over 70% of in-migrants to this municipality were in this age group, and the equivalent figure for out-migrants was 60%. Within this age band, in-migrants were skewed towards the younger end – persons aged 20-29 years comprised 381% of in-migrants, but just 15% of out-migrants. In contrast, persons aged 30-39 years were more likely to be out-migrants, comprising 45% of the total out-flow, compared to 32% of the in-flow.

While population mobility in Port Phillip is clearly skewed towards persons in their early and middle adult years, it is worth commenting that there is little evidence of large scale migration of young persons from outer suburban Melbourne to this particular inner city location. It is commonly thought that young adults will leave the suburban family home for a rental property in the inner city, yet this does not appear to be a significant feature of intracity migration in Melbourne. The largest flow into Port Philip from a suburban area was from Monash (720 persons), followed by Kingston (610). However, due to the high mobility of young adults, it may well be the case that the Census data represented here does not capture the many moves that young people may make in an intercensal period.

Population movement within regional Victoria

The volume of movement in regional Victoria is significantly lower than within Melbourne, but there are still distinct spatial patterns. Due to their population size, the largest net flows are to and from the large regional centres, particularly Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo

Table 9: Main flows of persons within regional Victoria, 2001–06


The largest flow within regional Victoria between 2001 and 2006 was from Surf Coast to Greater Geelong, consisting of 1,740 persons. There was a corresponding large flow in the opposite direction (1,410), resulting in a net gain to Greater Geelong of 330 persons. Furthermore, movement out of Greater Geelong to the neighbouring municipality of Golden Plains was the second largest flow, comprising almost 1,700 persons. The size of these flows are not only indicative of Geelong’s importance as a regional centre, but also it links with its hinterland. These links are both historical and cultural, and exemplified by the growth of commuting towns, as well as increased mobility and accessibility.

The mid-sized regional centres also featured amongst the largest flows. Migration between Warrnambool and the surrounding rural municipality of Moyne was significant in both directions. Again, this highlights the importance of links between regional centres and their hinterlands, which operate at a number of geographic scales. Migration flows in the Latrobe Valley were also strong, particularly from Wellington to Latrobe (890 persons).

A common perception about migration flows in regional Victoria is that there is significant migration from rural areas into large urban areas. This has been termed the “sponge city” phenomenon, whereby the population growth of regional centres is explained as a by product of in-migration from surrounding rural areas. While there are definite flows into some regional centres, the actual story is more complex because rural populations tend to be lower than the regional centres in which they sit. In fact, this analysis has repeatedly shown that most migration within Victoria is with surrounding areas, and in some cases, strong flows exist in and out of regional centres, resulting in small net gains.

Case studies – movement in regional Victoria

Coastal region – Surf Coast

Surf Coast Shire, located on the coast south of Geelong, is one of the more rapidly growing LGAs in regional Victoria. Between 2001 and 2006, the municipality grew 1.8% p.a. on average, reaching a population of 22,800 (ABS, 2007). The largest towns in the municipality are Torquay, Anglesea and Lorne. They have long been favoured holiday locations and tourism plays a major role in the economy. In more recent years, population growth in Torquay has been influenced by increasing links with the Geelong metropolitan area, particularly in the area of employment and education. There is a high level of commuting between the two localities, and the lack of a secondary college in Torquay requires older children from that town to travel to Geelong or elsewhere for education.

Figure 39: Major migration flows, Surf Coast, 2001–06


Between 2001 and 2006, Surf Coast (C) recorded a net migration gain of 820 persons, consisting of 4,010 in migrants and 3,190 out migrants. Net gains were recorded in all age groups, except for persons aged 15-24 and 70 years and over. However, the losses in these age groups were small. Figure 39 shows that movement between Surf Coast and the neighbouring regional centre of Greater Geelong dominated migration flows. This suggests that a lot of movement is intra-regional, possibly operating in a similar way to moves in the Melbourne metropolitan

area discussed above. At an even smaller geographic scale, the migration flows with the SLA of South Barwon – Inner, immediately adjoining Surf Coast Shire, were quite considerable, comprising 15% of in migrants and 29% of out migrants.

Due to the dominance of flows to and from Greater Geelong, the migratory flows with other municipalities were not large. In terms of migration from Melbourne, the largest in-flows were from the northern and western suburbs. This suggests that the sectoral movement operating within the Melbourne metropolitan area may also operate at a regional level, that is people moving west of Melbourne are more likely to come from the western suburbs.

Figure 40: Age structure of in and out migrants, Surf Coast, 2001-06


The age structure of in and out migrants to Surf Coast indicates that it is persons with younger families that comprise many movers – almost 22% of in-migrants are aged 30-39 years. The slightly higher than average proportions of children provides further evidence of this. It is commonly believed that retirement migration is playing a major role in driving population growth in Surf Coast, but analysis of the data shows that it is the interaction with the Geelong metropolitan region that is more important. Towns such as Torquay are located within easy commuting distance and are essentially becoming part of a wider Geelong urban region, their growth more a product of the expanding urban area and sphere of influence.

The role of retirement migration is small in comparison. The proportion of in-migrants aged 55-64 years is slightly higher (13%) than out-migrants (8%). In this age group, there was a net gain of persons (254), but this compares to 327 for persons aged 30-39 years. In common with most of regional Victoria, out migration of young persons was a feature of the migration patterns – persons aged 15-24 years comprised 12% of in-migrants, but 22% of out-migrants.

Dryland farming region – Hindmarsh

Hindmarsh Shire is located in north western Victoria. It has a small population that has been declining for several decades as a result of youth out migration, changes in the agricultural industry reducing the need for farm labour, ageing of the population, and in more recent years, extended drought. The largest towns in the Shire are Nhill and Dimboola.

Between 2001 and 2006, Hindmarsh recorded a net migration loss of 132 persons, consisting of 632 in migrants and 764 out migrants. Like other case study areas discussed in this paper, local moves dominated the migration streams, though the flows were small in size compared to other areas. This reflects the low population of the Shire and its older population, who have lower mobility rates.

Figure 41: Major migration flows, Hindmarsh, 2001–06


Flows between Hindmarsh and the neighbouring regional centre of Horsham were the largest, and a net migration loss of 65 persons was recorded. Given the small size of the flows, it is difficult to make generalisations, but it appears that, aside from Horsham, the other major inflows were from surrounding rural SLAs. However the major outflows were mainly to regional centres such as Ballarat and Mildura. This is also reflected in the net flows which show losses to these regional centres.

Despite the small numbers, the dominant trend is one of out migration of young persons. Persons aged 15-24 years showed a far greater tendency to move out of the Shire than in – they comprised 34% of out migrants, but only 11% of in migrants. Overall, there was a net loss of 190 persons in this age group, far higher than the total net loss for the Shire (132 persons). It is only the small net gains in most of the other age cohorts that reduced the overall net loss of persons in Hindmarsh.

Figure 42: Age structure of in and out migrants, Hindmarsh, 2001-06


Tree change region – Moira

The SLA of Moira – East is located in northern Victoria along the Murray River. The main town is Yarrawonga, which has grown considerably in recent years and is now a favoured “tree change” destination due to its climate and natural amenity factors. Moira recorded a net inflow of 505 persons between 2001 and 2006.

Figure 43: Major migration flows, Moira, 2001–06


Intra regional flows in and out of Moira dominated migration patterns, particularly neighbouring municipalities with larger towns, such as Shepparton, Wangaratta, Benalla and Wodonga. There were also flows with municipalities in Melbourne, but the numbers were small. This supports the notion that “tree-change” migration is a feature of population change in Moira.

Figure 44: Age structure of in and out migrants, Moira, 2001-06


Out migration of young persons from Moira was characteristic of the region, despite the large net inflow. Persons aged 15-24 years comprised 31% of out migrants, but just 11% of in-migrants. Net losses of persons in this age group totalled 494 persons, but there were net gains in most other age groups. This was particularly true of persons aged 55-64 years (251 persons), indicating that there is an element of retirement migration to the area. Persons aged 55-64 years comprised 15% of in-migrants, but only 9% of out-migrants.

Large regional centre – Ballarat

Ballarat is one of the largest regional centres in Victoria and has recorded consistent population and economic growth over a long period. Its influence extends way beyond its boundaries, with its catchment covering western Victoria in particular. A number of higher order services are located in Ballarat, such as universities, hospitals, state and federal government agencies.

Between 2001 and 2006, the total inflow into Ballarat was 10,710, and the out flow was 7,730, resulting in a net gain of 2,985 persons. The bulk of migration was with surrounding municipalities such as Hepburn and Golden Plains. This reflects the strong economic and social linkages between the regional centre and its rural hinterland. The rural area south of Ballarat, which extends into Golden Plains Shire, has a settlement pattern consistent with the peri-urban areas around Melbourne, ie small rural allotments that are popular with people seeking semi-rural lifestyles. On the other hand, migration to Ballarat may reflect a need to access jobs, education and even health services. Migration between Ballarat and Greater Geelong was also quite significant, reflecting strong economic and social linkages between large regional centres.

Figure 45: Major migration flows, Ballarat, 2001–06


Figure 46: Age structure of in and out migrants, Ballarat, 2001–06


A distinctive feature of migration patterns in regional centres is that compared to rural areas, they show a greater tendency to retain their youth. In the case of Ballarat, there was a net gain of 15-24 year olds (1,380 persons). This reflects the number of

boarding schools in the city, as well as the University of Ballarat, which has a catchment covering western Victoria. The only age group to record of net loss of persons was 25-29 year olds (-190). This may reflect a tendency to migrate for employment or family related reasons. In addition, because the catchment of regional centres extends beyond their municipal boundaries, some of this outward movement is likely to be to suburban (or peri-urban) in nature.

Conclusion

This report has presented an analysis of the major internal migration trends operating in Victoria. While there are some defining characteristics, such as the high mobility of young adults, internal migration is nevertheless a complex phenomenon.

While Census data can tell us much about the size and direction of migration flows, it does not reveal the decision made which lead to a change of address. A myriad of reasons lie behind the decision to move, yet only qualitative studies, which are not common in Australia, can reveal these. Results from the ABS Survey of Residential Mobility were presented here, but overall, this is a significant gap in the research, especially given the impact that migration has on population growth and redistribution. A greater understanding of the migration decision will inform policy development in regions which are strongly impacted by migration. Different policy levers are required depending on whether the region is planning for population growth or decline.

There is a strong relationship between age and the propensity to move, and furthermore, this appears to be linked to life cycle events. Significant life events can trigger a need for an individual to re-evaluate their housing situation, and hence possibly lead to a change of address. The most mobile group are persons aged 20-39 years – this is a stage of life in which several key life events are likely to occur, including moving out of the parental home, establishing a career, and starting a family. Thereafter, mobility does decline with age, only increasing slightly for the oldest age groups. For elderly persons, mobility is more likely a response to different life events, such as death of a spouse or health considerations.

Since the early 1980s, a strong movement of people from the southern “cold climate” states towards the northern “sun-belt” states has been a constant theme in the pattern of interstate migration within Australia. Yet this masks a certain level of volatility in both the spatial outcomes and the numbers involved. In other words, the nature of migration is not fixed, with economic conditions, lifestyle factors and perceived benefits of areas varying over time.

A number of themes emerge from the analysis of interstate migration:

o While Victoria has traditionally lost population to other parts of Australia, the volume has been volatile and exhibits some relationship to economic conditions. This is exemplified by the peak loss of persons in 1993–94, when the Victorian economy was depressed.

o Young people dominate interstate migration flows. Within Victoria, they tend to settle in, and leave from, inner Melbourne.

o Victoria’s greatest interaction is with Queensland and NSW – the state looses population to Queensland, but gains from NSW.

o At a more local level, there are strong interstate migration flows between municipalities along the Murray River bordering NSW, and to a lesser extent, South Australia.

Because Melbourne contains the bulk of Victoria’s population, it follows that the major migratory flows occur within the metropolitan area. Strong rates of population growth are typical of the urban fringe, fuelled in part by movement from the established suburbs. More recently, inner Melbourne has experienced renewed population growth, but regardless, the migratory flows in Melbourne are

predominantly outward. This suggests that population change in the inner areas is driven by new residents of Melbourne, and the analysis presented here has shown that interstate migrants tend to favour the inner suburbs.

Migration flows in regional Victoria are dominated by flows within and around the large regional centres, such as Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo. This is in part a function of their size and dominance in the urban hierarchy, but clearly, the access to employment, education and other services provided in these towns play a role.

The following themes emerge from the analysis of intra-state migration:

o Regional Victoria gains population from Melbourne through migration, though the level is volatile and masks two important trends. These are the loss of young adults from regional areas, and the strong flows between municipalities bordering the MSD.

o A strong sectoral effect operates within Melbourne – people tend to move outwards in the same area of the metropolitan area, for example from the inner north to the outer north. Cross town flows are far less significant and tend to occur in inner areas.

o Related to this, a significant proportion of migration is over short distances, either within the same geographic region or a surrounding one. This is evident in both Melbourne and regional Victoria.

o Mobility is highest amongst young adults, and to a lesser extent, young families.

The dynamics of population growth and change in Victoria is fuelled largely by internal migration and its spatial outcomes. While an understanding of these trends helps to explain these dynamics, it is also important to recognise that these do change over time, and as a result, changes to migration patterns within Victoria and Australia are inevitable.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Demographic Statistics (Cat. no. 3101.0)

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing (1981)






Australian Bureau of Statistics, Migration, Australia (Cat no. 3412.0)

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Survey of Residential and Workplace Mobility, 2008 (Cat. no. 3240.0)

population mobilitydelwp-internet-m5.clients.squiz.net/__data/assets/word_d… · web...

Documents